Prompt:
Rellis power line upgrade to support 1 GW?

Reply:
By "RELLIS powering upgrade to support 1 GW", I assume you mean: what would it take (or what is the plan) for the Texas A&M-RELLIS campus / "Energy Proving Ground" to support ~1 gigawatt of generation capacity (e.g. via small modular reactors, grid connection, infrastructure, etc.)? If you meant something else, I can adjust.

Here's a breakdown of what I found so far, the key challenges, and what would be required:


---

What is the current plan / precedent

Texas A&M (the A&M System) is proposing to host multiple small modular reactors (SMRs) on its RELLIS campus, under an initiative they call the "Energy Proving Ground."

The target is to have a "net increase of up to 1 GW of capacity" connected directly to the ERCOT grid from that site.

Four companies have been selected to partner: Kairos Power, Natura Resources, Terrestrial Energy, and Aalo Atomics, to explore building different reactor technologies at RELLIS.

The site is going through or preparing for an early site permit (ESP) process with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to enable deployment.

The campus is already undergoing infrastructure / reliability upgrades for interconnection to the grid. For example, Bryan Texas Utilities submitted a "RELLIS Campus Reliability Project" to ERCOT.


So the intention is exactly to "upgrade" or build capacity at RELLIS to support ~1 GW of nuclear / firm power.


---

Key technical & regulatory challenges / requirements

To realize a 1 GW (or even multiple smaller units summing to 1 GW) deployment at RELLIS, many aspects must be addressed. Here are the major ones:

Area Challenge / Requirement Notes / Considerations

Reactor technology / scale Choosing reactors whose modular capacities sum to ~1 GW Multiple small units or mid-sized SMRs will likely be needed, rather than one giant reactor (because SMRs are modular)
Licensing & regulatory approval Obtaining site approval, construction & operating licenses NRC process (esp. early site permit, construction permit) can take years; safety, environmental review, public hearings, etc.
Grid interconnection & transmission capacity Ensuring the local grid (lines, transformers, substations) can handle the injection of 1 GW and deliver it without bottlenecks Upgrades to transmission lines, switching, protection, grid stability (reactive power support, fault current)
Site infrastructure & civil works Cooling systems, water supply, site rights, foundations, access roads, site layout, safety zones, control buildings, security, etc. SMRs may have more flexibility but still require considerable civil works
Fuel supply, operations & maintenance Fuel logistics, refueling, waste handling, O&M staffing, supply chain, spare parts For novel reactors, supply chain maturity is a risk
Financing and contracts / offtake Capital cost, revenue assurance, power purchase agreements (PPAs) or commitments Need customers or grid buyers; cost of capital is high
Grid reliability / support services Ability to provide ancillary services (voltage support, frequency regulation, ramping capability), grid integration of firm baseload The generator must "play nicely" with grid operations
Safety, security & emergency planning Nuclear safety, site security, emergency preparedness, licensing compliance Standard but exacting requirements
Institutional & stakeholder coordination Engagement with ERCOT, local utilities (like Bryan TX Utilities), local governments, community, regulators Coordination is critical to avoid "sticking points" at interconnection or permitting
Scalability & modular deployment strategy Rolling deployment vs "all at once" To manage risk and cash flows, likely a phased build-out (e.g. install 200 MW units first, expand)


In sum, the plan is ambitious but somewhat aligned with what is being proposed elsewhere in advanced nuclear deployment.


---

Rough timeline and feasibility

Given existing public statements:

The goal is for the first reactors to be constructed within ~5 years (i.e. by ~2030) at RELLIS.

Rellis power line upgrade to support 1 GW?


But reaching full ~1 GW capacity may take longer, especially given the regulatory, technical, and financing challenges. (Some companies' statements suggest mid-2030s for full buildout)

The site is actively going through planning, permitting, and infrastructure upgrades currently.


So a plausible scenario is: incremental addition of reactor units over a decade or more, with initial capacity online earlier, but full 1 GW target achieved by mid-2030s.

You could be right about using a dry condenser, they are a technically viable option. Although economics suck.

I remember reading in Power Engineering about a Panhandle/West Texas utility that had one on a fossil unit. They are uncommon.
Back when Sharp proposed SMR at Rellis I gave dry condensers some thought. They bring their own set of unique issues.

- Dry condensers would dump an enormous amount of heat into the immediate environment. That might be okay in the desert but may be a challenge since Rellis has a large daytime population.
Fan noise moving that much air also has to be an issue in a location like Rellis.

- Brazos County has high nighttime temperatures for majority of the year. Desert areas where dry condensers are used have very cool nights. So thermal efficiency comparisons on dry condensers aren't the same when applied here. Thus more fuel used to make the same amount of power ( units will de-rate) even though Reactor is at 100%.
- impact is cost per megawatt becomes non competitive requiring subsidies to stay in business ( like wind & solar).

- maintenance costs running that many fans has to be high. Not sure about condenser tube wear rates blasting all that air through them.

-House loads on a unit will be in the 4-5% range, Fan motors will require another 2% of MWe output thus another hit to $/MWe.

I'm a fan of SMR, hope it happens. I'm sure the legal & technical hurdles can be solved, Financial aspects always kill the new nuclear prospects.

Salt Reactors will be a first of the kind technology , those are always high risk technically and financially. I had high hopes for the large experimental solar boiler/turbine in California that was closed last week. That would have been perfect for 3rd world countries. Unfortunately technical hurdles were too big- and that technology was much simpler that a Salt Reactor.

Build the dam....

BCS sewage water effluent has to be at least 10 Million gallons a day. Probably double. Although not potable, it is very high quality water.

Ideally that water could be sold and piped over to a SMR complex at Rellis. Would need a small holding reservoir.
Also would cause some environmental issues since it would dry up the streams that direct the effluent into the Navasota River.

The three very large nuclear units at Palo Verde west of Phoenix use Phoenix metro area sewage effluent.

Animal Eight 84 said:

---

BCS sewage water effluent has to be at least 10 Million gallons a day. Probably double. Although not potable, it is very high quality water.

Ideally that water could be sold and piped over to a SMR complex at Rellis. Would need a small holding reservoir.
Also would cause some environmental issues since it would dry up the streams that direct the effluent into the Navasota River.

The three very large nuclear units at Palo Verde west of Phoenix use Phoenix metro area sewage effluent.

---

That's great too. I just want a nice lake nearby to retire to.

I guess i am lost... how is the RELLIS datacenter any different than the CS midtown datacenter canceled by huge public turnout last month?

Both will disrupt BTU affordable power
Both will struggle with being a technology paperweight as chip designs change
Both will tip the balance of political control by citizens by having a massive political neighbor
Both are a wildcard when water security is at 8-10 years.

That's why I crossed over to come speak my 3 minutes at the College Station city council revolution against the proposed Midtown datacenter, though I live in Bryan.

Bryan was going to suffer just as much as College Station if the Midtown datacenter went in just because it was going to upset the dependable BTU power source. A 300MW datacenter is the dog wagging the tail of us the two cities. Adding nuclear to the mix does not tame the datacenter issues.

https://futurism.com/future-society/residents-shut-down-google-data-center

They are building SMRs at Texas Tech and Abilene Christian. Do they have better water resources than we do?

https://www.microgridknowledge.com/industrial-microgrids/article/55269474/nuclear-in-the-oil-patch-natura-texas-tech-exploring-smr-to-power-water-desalination-from-shale-drilling

TyHolden said:

---

They are building SMRs at Texas Tech and Abilene Christian. Do they have better water resources than we do?

https://www.microgridknowledge.com/industrial-microgrids/article/55269474/nuclear-in-the-oil-patch-natura-texas-tech-exploring-smr-to-power-water-desalination-from-shale-drilling

---

From the article...
"This collaboration, which includes the Texas Produced Water Consortium (TxPWC) at Texas Tech, focuses on integrating Natura's MSR-100 technology to provide a sustainable solution for water scarcity by purifying produced water from oil and gas operations."

That's going in a good direction utilizing SMR... cleaning water! And using the SMR away from a city with a load that will not drive up power bills of the local city when it goes offline. When the water desalination pump goes offline it just stops cleaning water. There is no power hungry datacenter that just lost power when the smr went offline and is now competing against the local city citizens for Power.

Cleaning "produced" water from oil and gas fields will hopefully help the water shortage in Texas. Though the jury is still out as to whether produced water from the oil field will EVER be clean enough for putting on farmland... as the article hopefully suggests. Removing all PFAS, the "forever chemical" is still a challenge for even reverse osmosis. The smr still will require clean water source unless using the "cleaned" water for the tertiary cooling cycle where it does not come in contact with radiation.

From an AI search...
My prompt:
Texas how many billions of gallons of produced water?

Estimates suggest Texas (especially the Permian Basin portion) produces on the order of ~168 billion gallons per year of "produced water" (oil & gas wastewater).

Another figure: in the Permian Basin alone, the daily output of produced water is estimated at about 1 billion gallons per day.

What about cooling using Brazos River water?

FamousAgg said:

---

What about cooling using Brazos River water?

---

From AI for your question...
"Can Texas pump water from the Brazos River to cool a data center?"
Short answer: yes, it's possiblebut it requires contracts and permits.

From me...
I think if everyone did that instead of pumping from the aquifer below the Caldwell area and beyond, the Brazos would run dry. The permits must impose fees to make it more economical to pump from the aquifer, though it costs electricity to pump from the aquifer.

This gets back then to the BCS water security issue. Our water security is based on how much water is left in the aquifer.

You would return the water to the river. Once through cooling water.

doubledog said:

---

BobAchgill said:

---

I guess i am lost... how is the RELLIS datacenter any different than the CS midtown datacenter canceled by huge public turnout last month?

Both will disrupt BTU affordable power
Both will struggle with being a technology paperweight as chip designs change
Both will tip the balance of political control by citizens by having a massive political neighbor
Both are a wildcard when water security is at 8-10 years.

That's why I crossed over to come speak my 3 minutes at the College Station city council revolution against the proposed Midtown datacenter, though I live in Bryan.

Bryan was going to suffer just as much as College Station if the Midtown datacenter went in just because it was going to upset the dependable BTU power source. A 300MW datacenter is the dog wagging the tail of us the two cities. Adding nuclear to the mix does not tame the datacenter issues.

https://futurism.com/future-society/residents-shut-down-google-data-center

---

I was against the midtown datacenter because it was just a poor location (midtown), without infrastructure, dependent on CoCS utilities for water/electric and it was a shady deal. The Rellis data center is in a relatively good location (rural) and BTU is on board (they will build the infrastructure to serve it). I am not sure what the water consumption will be, but the Rellis campus has it's own water wells (6) so that should be taken into account. Finally the Rellis datacenter will also involve a research/teaching component in A.I. and "big data", which is good for our students and the University.

---

Any water wells draw from the same aquifer. As the aquifer is drained farmers and cites have to drill deeper wells. In December 2024, Bryan City Council broke the news that the amount of water in the aquifer we all draw from went from 50 years to 8-10 years water security. After that water has to be brought in from somewhere else. San Antonio ran into that issue with with their aquifer running too low recently. So a third party company saw the opportunity to make money. The bought land above the aquifer we use, built a huge pipeline to San Antonio and sell water from the aquifer we rely on to San Antonio. Hence the reason our water security dropped from 50 years to 8-10 years.

The RELLIS datacenter will still have the water issue because we all drink from the same aquifer as does now, San Antonio.

RELLIS will have the noise pollution problem. What faculty and students will desire the 50db hum. Equal to an A/C compressor from 10-15 ft away.

And when the SMR goes offline either scheduled (it's research) or overheat (drops a plug) the power hungry datacenter will switch to pulling power from the power grid. BCS power prices will escalate based on our competing with the datacenter that draws more power than BCS combined.

Datacenters, wherever they are built near homes are the dog and the home owners are the tail. CS being 10 miles away from RELLIS does not insulate from the water and power draw issues.

FamousAgg said:

---

You would return the water to the river. Once through cooling water.

---

Probably for the same reasons the power plant at lake Bryan did not opt to use Brazos River for cooling but instead built a lake. Dependable flow, issues with ecology, it's a shared resource...

BobAchgill said:

---

1) These 4 SMRs being started up at RELLIS are the first to be used commercially in the US.

A nuclear power generator on a submarine or ship has the benefit of massive cooling.

Large nuclear power stations on land have huge cooling lakes.

How many seconds can your car run before you totally destroy your engine when you drop your lower radiator hose? Its about 15 seconds.

Water security Bryan city council said last December BCS has 8-10 years of water left down from 50 years. I was the only citizen at the meeting. We should be in rethink mode about water users. It takes 8-10 years to put in a desalination line to the Gulf to supply Central Texas needs. It will not be pretty when cities in central Texas start running out of water. They are already coming to our aquifer which is why our water security fell. Our aquifer does not recharge fast, it is more like a fossil aquifer. Watering a golf course now may be the water you need in 10 years to drink. If San Antonio did not get water from our aquifer they say the comal river would become an ecological problem. Their aquifer is too low.

As of Sept 1 oil and gas producers are free to dump their billions of gallons of "treated" "produced" fracking water in rivers and on farmland. Why do they want to? Its cost prohibitive to pump 5 barrels of water for every 1 barrel of oil to then have to reinject the spoiled water. Cleaning the PFAS out of surface water using reverse osmosis is water hungry... tailings effluent with the rejected PFAS, etc wastes water.

Power, Power, Power... what are they going to do when the nuclear power generators need to be taken offline for startup issues. If they pull power from the grid, will we be competing with the datacenter for our power needs? We know who will win that battle. Their budget is $15 billion ??? ... Bryan is $1 billion and College Station is $350 million.

Once installed the city's will have no legislative power over them. They can easily pay $10,000 fines per day. Or hire 50 lawyers to our 2.

Ask the realtors. How will land prices go within 5 miles of RELLIS??? With the right wind direction I guess the folks in Traditions will hear the distant roar of Gas turbine backup generators sounding off.

After my degree I worked in the Chem plant for 7 years. I saw very reputable companies that had stellar performance history with their product line encounter catastrophic problems when they were introducing a new tweak to their established product. There really is no margin.

From where i sit... any of the above, nuclear, water, power are just as likely to turn BCS into a ghost town.

I wonder how it would sit for Austin folks if they had this 5 miles from their downtown? Our city and A&M leaders have kept the details from the ones they work for... what is the water usage? How are we going to get desalinated water soon enough? What backup power will be used? Can it be remote so we don't hear it? What is the assurance plan for evacuation? Are the roads wide enough to support an evacuation? Can we pull the plug if the experiment at RELLIS does not go well?

---

It'll be alright.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/armys-nuclear-comeback-sweeping-new-program-aims-break-tyranny-fuel-bases-across-globe

I don't recall all the details but it seems like we've partnered / announced partnerships for various things at RELLIS with the armed forces. Maybe this explains why we're looking at building small nuclear reactors?

Quote:

---

The Army is launching a sweeping new nuclear program to generate power for bases across the globe, particularly in remote or contested locations where fuel might be difficult to obtain, Fox News Digital has learned.

"Hundreds of millions" of dollars will be funneled into the project known as the Janus Program over the next five years, according to Dr. Jeff Waksman, the Army official leading the effort, to install next-generation commercial microreactors at military sites.

"Great power conflict is defined by who can move their resources around," Waksman said. Energy demands are only set to increase as modern warfare trends toward drones, directed-energy weapons and artificial intelligence. And as war planners prepare for a potential battlefront in the Indo-Pacific with China, "our ability to move energy around the oceans has never been more challenged," he said.

---

Quote:

---

"It is an immense challenge in terms of providing 24/7 power. Military bases right now are powered entirely by fossil fuels. It is not possible with current technology to provide 24/7 power with solar, wind, and batteries," Waksman said. "So the only solution to the tyranny of fuel that exists now is nuclear power."

---

Quote:

---

Nuclear microreactors are smaller, factory-built power systems that use the same basic principles as traditional nuclear plants but at a fraction of the size. Most produce between one and 20 megawatts of electricity enough to power a small town or a military installation and can operate for years without refueling.

Unlike large commercial reactors, which can take a decade to construct, microreactors are designed for rapid deployment. They can be shipped by truck or aircraft and installed on-site within weeks, providing steady, carbon-free power in places where fuel delivery is difficult or dangerous.

---

Quote:

---

The Army plans to work with multiple vendors, each expected to build at least two reactors the first serving as a prototype and the second refined through lessons learned.

---

5MW of nuclear reactor is coming.

https://wtaw.com/texas-am-system-announces-an-agreement-to-build-a-nuclear-reactor-on-the-rellis-campus/

FamousAgg said:

---

5MW of nuclear reactor is coming.

https://wtaw.com/texas-am-system-announces-an-agreement-to-build-a-nuclear-reactor-on-the-rellis-campus/

---

5 megawatts (MW) will power about 1,500 homes annually. About the same as a solar farm.

For comparison the research reactor at TAMU Nuclear Science Center (at the airport) is 1MW.

Excellent news.

doubledog said:

---

FamousAgg said:

---

5MW of nuclear reactor is coming.

https://wtaw.com/texas-am-system-announces-an-agreement-to-build-a-nuclear-reactor-on-the-rellis-campus/

---

5 megawatts (MW) will power about 1,500 homes annually. About the same as a solar farm.

For comparison the research reactor at TAMU Nuclear Science Center (at the airport) is 1MW.

---

About right for RELLIS. For now. They keep building, we'll need another one.

Very small. About 1 or 2 modern wind turbines. Except they always work.

Yes, it's barely considered grid scale power. I have heard rumors about these RELLIS units being in the hundreds of MW each. So it's quite a bit lower than I thought.

doubledog said:

---

FamousAgg said:

---

5MW of nuclear reactor is coming.

https://wtaw.com/texas-am-system-announces-an-agreement-to-build-a-nuclear-reactor-on-the-rellis-campus/

---

5 megawatts (MW) will power about 1,500 homes annually. About the same as a solar farm.

For comparison the research reactor at TAMU Nuclear Science Center (at the airport) is 1MW.

---

The 5MW is the thermal output, not the electrical side, which has been in the 33-35% range of thermal values, for current US power reactors.

GSS said:

---

doubledog said:

---

FamousAgg said:

---

5MW of nuclear reactor is coming.

https://wtaw.com/texas-am-system-announces-an-agreement-to-build-a-nuclear-reactor-on-the-rellis-campus/

---

5 megawatts (MW) will power about 1,500 homes annually. About the same as a solar farm.

For comparison the research reactor at TAMU Nuclear Science Center (at the airport) is 1MW.

---

The 5MW is the thermal output, not the electrical side, which has been in the 33-35% range of thermal values, for current US power reactors.

---

This is correct. The 5MW at Rellis will be used for research. If all goes well they will be connected to the grid.

According to this it will be a 5MW electrical output. Says it's their PWR-20 reactor scaled to produce 5MWe

https://www.lastenergy.com/news-press/last-energy-partners-with-texas-a-m-to-build-microreactor-at-rellis-campus

FamousAgg said:

---

According to this it will be a 5MW electrical output. Says it's their PWR-20 reactor scaled to produce 5MWe

https://www.lastenergy.com/news-press/last-energy-partners-with-texas-a-m-to-build-microreactor-at-rellis-campus

---

Good info. Often reactors, power or research units, are mentioned by their thermal ratings.

It will be a proof of concept prototype reactor at 5 MWe generator output .

Right now , other than one Chinese prototype, the small modular reactors are conceptual. They have to shake out all the known unknowns and all the unknown unknowns.

I highly doubt it will be built and function testing in 5 years.

Scheduled to test in 2026

FamousAgg said:

---

Scheduled to test in 2026

---

It's an interesting concept.
Essentially build a 1/3 size S9G naval power plant but power it with a larger size reactor so they can use low enriched commercial 17x17 fuel. Secondary side is all air cooled !

Then disconnect it every six years and weld on another primary & containment module to connect steam & feedwater to the secondary ( turbine ) side. All buried for safety.
Assuming they also weld connections to a central module containing primary water purification, volume control, and boric acid control, emergency core cooling, containment cooling, fire suppression , etc, etc. All conceptually feasible, just a lot of engineering, construction, and licensing issues to resolve…..

A few items to consider.

There is no plan or process to defuel the reactor spent fuel after six years.
Currently after 6 years a reactor vessel ( in a steel containment vessel) with several highly irradiated fuel assemblies is indefinitely left underground - yet the fuel has to be continuously cooled for several years to remove decay heat.
-a reactor coolant has a very small water volume compared to a spent fuel pool. How does the design answer this licensing issue?
- unless all assemblies have control or shutdown rods (which I doubt) , leaving the fuel assemblies in a tightly packed potentially critical configuration has the potential for inadvertent criticality if shutdown boron is accidentally diluted. I would like to see how this was resolved in the design.

- using 12' commercially available fuel (12 ft enriched 17x17 grid ) for six years in a 80MWt reactor is hard to envision. Over PWR core life, fuel burns unevenly both axially and based on core location. Trying to run a 72 month cycle without shuffling fuel locations and not exceed licensed design peaking factors does not seem possible.

I didn't think the Haskell County module facility was finished and certified for ASME class 1 welding.
Are they currently subcontracting the modules for the prototype? Building a small disposable 3 loop, 83MWt, low enrichment, PWR isn't simple.
A unique, smaller 20 MWt test version that meets ASME class 1 doesn't remove many of the challenges since no one has done it.

Is the supply chain in place? I wonder if they have a partnership with Westinghouse or AREVA ? Or an overseas PWR vendor?
Especially for unique PWR items like nuclear fuel 17x17 assemblies, reactor control rods, nuclear incore instrumentation for monitoring flux, etc., etc.

I wish them success and good fortune. A lot of challenges to solve.

I'm reading these posts sitting beside lake Bryan. A little boy pointed to the lake and asked his parents. "If we cross this ocean do we go to Spain." Reminds me of the gap in realty in this commercially proving 1st in kind nuclear so close to a town. The difference between lake and ocean can be difficult to judge without proven experience. There are many unintended consequences when proving a new system in a commercial environment. Anyone of which can cause great harm to the people of the town. That's the reason everyone in the county should be considered stake holders in Texas A&M letting private enterprise prove their nuclear generators. It stops being private at the RELLIS fence line in any uncontrolled issue... water, noise, power nuclear contamination.

Reminds me of an alternative meaning for NDA. Not Doing Anything. That's what children say when parents walk into the room and smell a hint of burned sulfer and ask their child about the smell. "Honest, Not Doing Anything!"

A wise parent will ask more questions when they smell somethings up. Because they know their child can be foolish/naive at times and burn the house down.

There is the smell of smoke at RELLIS.

No mention of water by the mayor in this datacenter article about RELLIS. He also says the datacenter will be quiet. Verify, then trust... or make the citizens financial stakeholders by giving them 2% downstream profits of all later use of the resulting certified technology. It cannot be certified to be near a population until a population takes the risks.

https://www.kbtx.com/2025/10/17/follow-up-what-we-know-about-potential-data-center-near-rellis/

doubledog said:

---

BobAchgill said:

---

I'm reading these posts sitting beside lake Bryan. A little boy pointed to the lake and asked his parents. "If we cross this ocean do we go to Spain." Reminds me of the gap in realty in this commercially proving 1st in kind nuclear so close to a town. The difference between lake and ocean can be difficult to judge without proven experience. There are many unintended consequences when proving a new system in a commercial environment. Anyone of which can cause great harm to the people of the town. That's the reason everyone in the county should be considered stake holders in Texas A&M letting private enterprise prove their nuclear generators. It stops being private at the RELLIS fence line in any uncontrolled issue.

Reminds me of an alternative meaning for NDA. Not Doing Anything. That's what children say when parents walk into the room and smell a hint of burned sulfer and ask their child about the smell. "Honest, Not Doing Anything!"

A wise parent will ask more questions when they smell somethings up. Because they know their child can be foolish/naive at times and burn the house down.

There is the smell of smoke at RELLIS.

No mention of water by the mayor in this datacenter article about RELLIS. He also says the datacenter will be quiet. Verify, then trust... or make the citizens financial stakeholders by giving them 2% downstream profits of all later use of the resulting certified technology. It cannot be certified to be near a population until a population takes the risks.

https://www.kbtx.com/2025/10/17/follow-up-what-we-know-about-potential-data-center-near-rellis/

---

Your link only explores the data center, which according to the KBTX article, will be on the BTU grid.

A 5MW Th reactor is worth the risk. Located in NE Brazos county 8 miles from Bryan, is a logical and safe place to do the research to mitigate the risk and maximize the return.

---

With the secrecy of NDAs...connect the dots... datacenters need cheap power, nuclear needs a datacenter to test its capabilities, chip manufacturing, datacenters and nuclear need lots of water, uninterrupted power. Notice the clues... the article does not mention water. It indicates that the gas turbines are not needed. They roll out bits and pieces but hide the whole integrated plan. So they will not use the nuclear at all to run the datacenters? But nuclear needs a load to test. The grid does not like tests producers if electricity. They give heavy fines if a producer drops offline unscheduled.